Subscribe To

Monday, July 3, 2017

New Wine and Old Wineskins

Matthew
9:16 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the
patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17 Neither do
people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the
wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

Ofir Haivry and Yoram Hazony have written a piece published
at American Affairs entitled “What Is
Conservatism?”They ask all of the
right questions and draw many proper distinctions.

I am sure that you have guessed by their names the tribal roots
of the two authors.They belong to
perhaps the only tribe in the west that is allowed to hold on to and write
openly about the value of common culture and tradition.

They begin by noting the great shift represented by two
elections in 2016: Brexit and Trump.I
would add to this the similar sentiments behind many national movements
throughout the liberal West.They note
that many of their conservative brethren decry this illiberal movement.This causes them to note:

These and similar examples
demonstrate once again that more than a few prominent conservatives in America
and Britain today consider themselves to be not only conservatives but also
liberals at the same time.

How often have we said that these are merely two branches of
the same tree, with no real differences to be found?Liberal conservatives such as these find
their roots in John Locke:

It is to this tradition, they say,
that we must turn for the political institutions—including the separation of
powers, checks and balances, and federalism—that secure the freedoms of
religion, speech, and the press; the right of private property; and due process
under law.

“Foul” cry the authors.Conservatism has its roots not in Locke, but in traditions that pre-date
Locke by centuries.

Its advocates fought for and
successfully established most of the freedoms that are now exclusively
associated with Lockean liberalism, although they did so on the basis of tenets
very different from Locke’s.

Locke’s freedoms were established well before Locke; more
importantly, Locke’s foundations were drastically different and far more
fragile:

Indeed, when Locke published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689,
offering the public a sweeping new rationale for the traditional freedoms
already known to Englishmen, most defenders of these freedoms were justly
appalled. They saw in this new doctrine not a friend to liberty but a product
of intellectual folly that would ultimately bring down the entire edifice of
freedom.

The statement is worth reading twice.

Today’s self-described conservatives embrace this liberal
foundation; there is no true opposing force.Assuming its proponents even desired to do so, today’s liberal
conservatism is impotent to deal with many of the political challenges facing
the west today; these challenges are difficult or impossible to oppose with
this liberal doctrine:

…liberal principles contribute
little or nothing to those institutions that were for centuries the bedrock of
the Anglo-American political order: nationalism, religious tradition, the Bible
as a source of political principles and wisdom, and the family.

All of the freedoms that today’s liberal conservative embrace
have their foundation in traditions that pre-date Locke by centuries.And today’s liberal conservatives turn their
backs – and even actively oppose – every institution that offered the only
stable foundation for its principles.

In this essay, we seek to clarify
the historical and philosophical differences between the two major
Anglo-American political traditions, conservative and liberal.

The authors trace the roots to the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, beginning with men like Sir John Fortescue and Richard Hooker
(although they offer that even these men had earlier influences).I have offered my version previously, here;
in this, I trace these earlier roots to a time well before the Enlightenment.

The authors go on to contrast these earlier conservative
traditions to the liberal tradition brought on by man’s reason.

Like later conservative tradition, [15th
century Sir John] Fortescue does not believe that either scripture or human
reason can provide a universal law suitable for all nations.

The cultural soil, apparently, matters.Different cultures develop differently and
have different foundations.Of course,
man cannot escape using his reason.In this
traditional view, man used his reason to apply traditional law to modern
problems.

We are pounded with the notion that [fill in your favorite
political system] can provide a universal law suitable for all nations.Jefferson certainly believed this; today’s
advocates for spreading democracy certainly believe this; communists believe
this; many libertarians – especially on the left – certainly believe this.

For many centuries prior to Fortescue – I would argue at
least ten – those who understood voluntary law never did believe this.If it was even considered, I suspect it would
have been looked at as folly.

…Fortescue argues that a nation
that is self-disciplined and accustomed to obeying the laws voluntarily rather
than by coercion is one that can productively participate in the way it is
governed.

There will always be governance
in any civil society (note, I wrote “governance,” not government).Culture matters.The more cohesive a society is culturally,
the less demand there will be for coercion in governing (i.e. “government”).

The authors move on to “the great seventeenth-century battle
between defenders of the traditional English constitution against political
absolutism on one side, and against the first advocates of a Lockean
universalist rationalism on the other.”

The authors offer John Selden as “probably the greatest
theorist of Anglo-American conservatism.”

Selden played a leading role in
drafting and passing an act of Parliament called the Petition of Right…

In this petition, one will find many of the “rights”
declared in the Bill of Rights – all before Locke was even born.These rights were not defended based upon
some man-made concept of universal reason, but on traditions traced to the Bible
and, I suggest, made manifest in European thinking during the Germanic Middle
Ages.

… Selden argues that, everywhere in
history, “unrestricted use of pure and simple reason” has led to conclusions
that are “intrinsically inconsistent and dissimilar among men.”

Selden, like Fortescue before him, declares that a universal
system of rights developed by man’s reason and applicable to all was
impossible.How could it be
otherwise?Is not our reason shaped by
our environment, in the broadest sense of the term?Are we now to insist that all environments are created equal?

Selden looks to tradition and custom, but he does not hold
to it blindly; in this, he carries on the idea of looking to law that is both
old and good.The law develops through a
system of trial and error over multiple generations; and each nation builds its
own tradition based on its own experiences.

Note that law developed via trial and error; “error” being
the key.This flies in the face of today’s
law – which recognizes precedent and rarely discards precedent, no matter how
damaging the precedent.

Attacks against these positions came from two sides: those
who advocated for absolute monarchy (ultimately labeled “the right”) and those
who advocated along the lines of Lockean liberalism (ultimately labeled “the
left”).As is often the case, we find that
there are not just two possible choices – after all, these two sides were “right”
and “left” of something.

I find this observation by the authors very noteworthy and
clarifying.I have for some time
understood that libertarians and communists share some common philosophical
roots, for example, regarding the dangers of authority; classical liberals and
modern liberals share common roots as well, most notably in the dangerous
phrase “all men are created equal.”

You are either an absolutist or a liberal; there is no
possibility of a third way, of suggesting a return to the foundation – or even
that a foundation exists.It is a view
which allows today’s modern liberals to place Brexiteers and Trump supporters
on the same side as Nazis.

In both cases (libertarian / communist and classical /
modern liberal), are the two branches merely different reactions to the same
foundation, that of conservatism as described in the subject essay?

The authors go on to examine why Locke’s liberalism was so
troubling to those who held to the traditional view; they explain how Locke’s
ideas were rejected at the time in England, but embraced in France (we saw how
that turned out); we come to understand how Burke can be, somehow, embraced by
both the left and the right (because Burke built on the traditions that existed
before Locke to come to similar conclusions, but built on a more secure
foundation).

They go on to develop the continuing history.It is a history worth reading without my further
efforts to summarize; further, the authors offer a damning critique for much of
the dogma offered by those who propose that their political philosophy (whether
social democracy, communism, or libertarianism) is applicable to all mankind.

There is much with which I take issue in the subject essay;
this does not diminish its value regarding certain invaluably key points.

Conclusion

Locke poured new wine into old wineskins.That wineskin is finally bursting.

8 comments:

I appreciate your arguments about the importance of culture in any form of governance. It has taken a while, but slowly, you are converting me from a strict "NAP-NAP-NAP" to someone that tries to view the NAP through a cultural lens. But one of my big hang ups is the fact that the wrong culture can be much more repressive of "human rights" (needs definition) than a coercive government. I think some aspects of human life has to boil down to right and wrong, regardless of culture. Just because a culture arises that considers the stoning of adulterers old and good, doesn't mean that it IS old and good. I think there has to be some level of an absolute ethic that applies to all humans across all times and locations. What do you consider the proper balance of NAP and culture, and how does that occur in reality? It seems that you are very sympathetic to the NAP in a christian culture, but like any religion and religious text, it can be interpreted and applied in many ways- not all of them conducive to the protection of human/property rights.

I apologize if I am misrepresenting your argument. I am by no means a professional philosopher - but I would appreciate your feedback.

“But one of my big hang ups is the fact that the wrong culture can be much more repressive of "human rights" (needs definition) than a coercive government.”

I agree with this, and at times in my writing have made a distinction to the effect “a certain culture” or some such.

I cannot speak with knowledge regarding cultures / religions outside of what is commonly understood as Judeo-Christian. It does seem to me, from all of my reading, that the one culture that has brought forward the ideas of voluntary governance, etc., is the one born from this tradition.

“Just because a culture arises that considers the stoning of adulterers old and good, doesn't mean that it IS old and good.”

Cultures evolve over time. When this is done through reasonably voluntary / market derived methods, I find this to be a good thing. When this is done by force, as we see today with the forcing upon the west of cultural Marxism (although I refer to it as cultural Gramsci-ism) and the forcible immigration policies, this is a bad thing.

During the European Middle Ages, slavery was virtually abolished (yes, they had serfs, but serfs were most definitely not slaves) – slavery did not long survive the fall of Rome. Even though slavery was “old” culture, it was not deemed “good.”

"...each nation builds its own tradition based on its own experiences."

Suppose a nation (in the cultural sense) has developed a tradition that is not conducive to libertarianism - however broadly defined - but most people in that nation were happy with that tradition. And the ones who weren't still wouldn't give up their nationhood on account of a flawed system of politics or law, because it would mean giving up their allegiance to their kinsmen. I'm not talking about a super-state like the US, but something smaller, more culturally/historically homogeneous. Would this necessarily be a bad thing, from a libertarian perspective? What we would define as rights may be violated as part of their traditions, but the people aren't that upset about it (or don't even consider it a right in the sense that we libertarians do).

Should the goal of libertarians be to create libertarian nations? Or should the goal simply be to let people develop, improve, and enjoy their own cultures?

“Would this necessarily be a bad thing, from a libertarian perspective?...Should the goal of libertarians be to create libertarian nations? Or should the goal simply be to let people develop, improve, and enjoy their own cultures?”

One of the eye-opening things I read on this issue was from, I believe, Ryan McMaken at the Mises Institute. I might be paraphrasing, but the way I describe it is: Libertarianism in theory is decentralization in practice.

We don’t get “perfect” in a market. What we get is choice – a vast array of choice. So why expect “perfect” from a political philosophy?

We live in a world made up of imperfect humans. We don’t get “perfect.” For me, libertarianism put into practice means decentralization – more choice, lower levels of political power and authority, etc. In practice, we will make compromise – and where we compromise is an individual’s choice; value is subjective.

But as long as the available choices are ever increasing, those compromises will be fewer and fewer.

I've always understood nationalism is more properly placed in the left wing, and I don't find what they say here convincing. Most everything I've ever read about nationalism traces it to German philosophical heirs of Kant and the French revolution. It strikes me as odd that conservatives would latch on to it, considering that it quickly became the most powerful political force in Europe, and swept away all the old institutions, customs and freedoms they claim to want to preserve. Though I've never read Fortescue, he's writing well before these events, and nationalism as understood in the philosophic tradition I just mentioned has specific characteristics that typically make it incompatible with monarchy, for example, which was one of the reasons it emerged in the French revolution. So I would challenge their placement of nationalism as a traditional conservative value, as I understand nationalism, but I understand these days nationalism is meant by some to mean controlled borders, and not political nationalism as understood for the last two hundred years.